Well, that's us told

It shows a singular lack of critical thought and reading comprehension to persist in conflating prioritisation of women’s rights by women as being “transphobic”, and entirely to ignore safeguarding concerns.

I despair.

I've been around these parts for over a decade and have never had a pregnancy, let alone given birth.

Fabulous work Katie, thank you 😊

Brilliant article, thanks for sharing. I hope she deconstructs this thread as well.

This particular paragraph seems very relevant:

The community isolates its members in a bubble of transphobic thought that leaves them free to develop their bigotries without needing to encounter the human beings affected by them.

This thread is a perfect example of that.

The disdain and superiority that drips from the author’s use of slurs simply reinforces the detachment from reality that comes from dehumanising people by grouping people and labeling them. When someone is so unable to see past the ‘te*f’ label to actually understand the point of view held, it results in so many inaccuracies contained in the article.

Like those who come from twitter with the intent to shame the woman for discussing the areas of conflicts between the rights of women and girls and another groups rights. They too often have nothing substantial to offer in the way of evidence to support their assertions.

All they have is the firm belief that are righteous.

I think it is hugely important for us to not fall into this trap. I think the majority of regular posters, journos and writers who are writing from this perspective, succeed by not dehumanising the people in the group whose rights are causing that conflict.

For instance, when you realize that the term Trans Rights Activists also includes those fighting along women holding the line, calling someone a TRA loses its bite. Better to fight the argument than to write it off as a ‘TRA’ view, iyswim.

It is this prejudice that makes this article so full of wild and broad assumptions and utter contempt at those the author feels she has labeled the hateful ‘te*rfs’.

It must be wonderfully reassuring to those who read it. It relies on old tropes and misogyny.

It makes for a bonkers read from my perspective.

“Believed to be”

This is a key phrase. Believed to be by whom? What is actually going on is it’s comforting for these people to paint all those who post here as the same generic mass of “evil” ideology - right wing, fundamentalist, evangelical, middle-aged, middle class straight women - because the reality just doesn’t bear thinking about. It’s inconceivable to them that anyone who is posting here opposed to them could be gay, lesbian, working class, left wing, black, Asian etc because to conceive such a possibility means they’d have to stop and think “maybe these posters have a point” and that would never do.

As I read thread after thread, I noticed that many of the posters wrote about feeling newly disenfranchised and isolated after giving birth for the first time; cast out of a society in which they had previously enjoyed power by virtue of their relative wealth and education.

What? I've been on this board years and have never seen anyone say this. What people do say is that pregnancy and childbirth make them more aware of how important biology is.

Research shows that nearly all Mumsnetters are women. More specifically, they are believed to be mostly white, middle-class, heterosexual women

Looking at her journalist profile, the author also appears to be white and middle class with nothing to suggest she is homosexual 🤷‍♀️

‘TERFs believe that women are defined by their biological differences from men. They want liberation from gender stereotypes, but don’t think it’s possible to be freed from biological sex, and argue the latter goal is not just naive but hurts efforts to combat sexual violence and discrimination.'

I assume someone writing that is secretly gender critical. It sums up gender critical beliefs really well and almost everyone will agree with it.

That and other quotes like the giving birth one basically function as an advert for gender critical feminism.

TERFs believe that women are defined by their biological differences from men. They want liberation from gender stereotypes, but don’t think it’s possible to be freed from biological sex, and argue the latter goal is not just naive but hurts efforts to combat sexual violence and discrimination.'

I went back and read the whole article. Others quoted this and it really is the standout paragraph. She is so blinkered by her overwhelming belief that T*RFs are bad that she is unable to see that the above statement does the opposite of what she thinks it does.

So her claim is that “it’s possible to be freed from biological sex”

Go on then love, tell us how that’s going to happen. By what mechanism are we to be freed from that?

Yes interesting choice of quotes. I wonder why no one ever chooses to demonstrate the “transphobia” here by quoting posts such as:

“I think it’s wrong that a child rapist should avoid prison just because they are going through transition.”

I wonder why?

I was going to say I don't imagine Lux will get much in the way of readership beyond their own small circle jerk of the already converted - but then it was pointed out that Lux is already the name of a pre-existing magazine.
I can just imagine the confusion of ordinary people, who don't live their lives on twitter, just wanting a gander at a photo of some billionaire's bathroom and stumbling across this:

TERFs believe that women are defined by their biological differences from men. They want liberation from gender stereotypes, but don’t think it’s possible to be freed from biological sex, and argue the latter goal is not just naive but hurts efforts to combat sexual violence and discrimination.

Instead.
How many of them will read that and have a major wtf moment? The disconnect between something so blatantly true being presented as a form of radical bigotry will send them all over here just to find out what the hell is going on.
And all they wanted was to find out what kitchen appliances Kim Kardashian uses.

And as for that 'about' page ... the only concrete thing I could see they stood for was the abolition of police. That's just ... that's ... nobody takes people who want to abolish the police seriously.
Everyone with more than two brain cells understands why that is a terrible idea.
How can they be so stupid and expect anyone to take anything they have to say seriously?

When this craziness is over, some people are going to be so fucking embarrassed.
The fact that nothing is ever really lost from the internet is one of the worst features of the internet ... but sometimes it's one of the best features too.

What's the difference between an MRA and a MN?

Wallpaper

Liberal feminists - happy to ignore the lived experience of brown women everywhere in favour of hoping men will like you if you agree with everything they want to do to women.

The TRAs are having a normal one in reaction to the article. Apparently this board is responsible for the deaths of transwomen in Latin America. Who knew all those violent men are FWR regulars.

mobile.twitter.com/julie_neuhouser/status/1382042421517688833

You're right, @WarOnWomen. The author's so firmly convinced she's preaching to the choir that she's neglected to obfuscate and evade gender-critical arguments to the usual degree:

“'Carrying my child and birthing my child was not a fucking social construct,' another wrote."

"I read about outrage over a gym that segregates changing rooms by gender identity instead of biological sex."

Personally I came away thinking the author is completely transphobic - after all, she denigrated and misgendered the ManFriday protestors, calling their beards "fake".

That's literally violence Katie, you transphobe. Who are you to question someone's gender identity?

I really liked all the quotes from the posters on here. They added sunlight the issues to anyone reading. I know they were added to make her points but I think it was counterproductive.

The piece was so uneven that it was almost like she was in awe of the board to be honest but couldn't quite admit to it.

“the empire promoted laws criminalizing homosexuality and enforcing the gender binary”

Isn’t this incorrect in some respects in that Queen Victoria famously thought it was not possible for women to be homosexual?

So, if laws against homosexuality are supposed to have increased the likelihood of an entrenched idea of binary in th U.K. it can only ever have been half so.

Also, whatever the law, wasn’t homosexuality always called ‘the English disease’ by foreigners. If it was the English disease they might have been less binary according to the argument.

What could have been more stereotypical than the entrenched binary stereotypes of US films?

In practice the U.K. was always more liberal in a hidden way than (white) Americans with their more Puritan roots. Hence many US parents were shocked by the Beatles, Rolling Stones etc. U.K. had David Bowie, Punk Rock more avant-guard fashion. Individual thought. Eccentrics.

Can you actually buy a Radicalised by Mumnet t-shirt though?

That's honestly my takeaway from reading the whole article because the rest was just more factless sighing over women not giving in to what men want.

It would be nice if govts etc... listened to this forum as much as the author seems to think they do though.

Good grief. I read the first few paragraphs but I'm not wasting any more of my precious life reading that load of tedious codswallop.

Jog on, love.

I am getting so tired of this idea that everyone on Mumsnet is privileged, straight, white, middle to upper class, rich! I am pleased that she directs people to Contrapoints, though, as Contrapoints videos are so daft that they direct more people to come and check out what we're actually saying.

Well at least they wrote it down. Thats going to be embarrassing to read when they re-enter reality.